During the 2010 - 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, extensive liquefaction was observed in many areas of Christchurch city and its surroundings, causing widespread damage to buildings and infrastructure. While existing simplified methods were found to work well in some areas of the city, there were also large areas where these methods did not perform satisfactorily. In some of these cases, researchers have proposed that layers of fine grained material within the soil profile may be responsible for preventing the manifestation of liquefaction. This paper presents preliminary findings on the mechanisms at play when pressure differentials exist across a clay layer. It is found that if the clay layer is unable to distort, then pore fluid is unable to break-through the layer even with relatively high pressures, resulting in dissipation of excess pore pressures by seepage. If the layers are however able to distort, then it is possible for the pore fluid to break through the clay layer, potentially resulting in adverse effects in terms of the severity of liquefaction.
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand was severe and extensive, and data regarding the displacements associated with the lateral spreading provides an excellent opportunity to better understand the factors that influence these movements. Horizontal displacements measured from optical satellite imagery and subsurface data from the New Zealand Geotechnical Database (NZGD) were used to investigate four distinct lateral spread areas along the Avon River in Christchurch. These areas experienced displacements between 0.5 and 2 m, with the inland extent of displacement ranging from 100 m to over 600 m. Existing empirical and semi-empirical displacement models tend to under estimate displacements at some sites and over estimate at others. The integrated datasets indicate that the areas with more severe and spatially extensive displacements are associated with thicker and more laterally continuous deposits of liquefiable soil. In some areas, the inland extent of displacements is constrained by geologic boundaries and geomorphic features, as expressed by distinct topographic breaks. In other areas the extent of displacement is influenced by the continuity of liquefiable strata or by the presence of layers that may act as vertical seepage barriers. These observations demonstrate the need to integrate geologic/geomorphic analyses with geotechnical analyses when assessing the potential for lateral spreading movements.
The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) of 2010-2011 caused widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch. Observations from the CES highlight some sites were liquefaction was predicted by the simplified method but did not manifest. There are a number of reasons why the simplified method may over-predict liquefaction, one of these is the dynamic interaction between soil layers within a stratified deposit. Soil layer interaction occurs through two key mechanisms; modification of the ground motion due to seismic waves passing through deep liquefied layers, and the effect of pore water seepage from an area of high excess pore water pressure to the surrounding soil. In this way, soil layer interaction can significantly alter the liquefaction behaviour and surface manifestation of soils subject to seismic loading. This research aimed to develop an understanding of how soil layer interaction, in particular ground motion modification, affects the development of excess pore water pressures and liquefaction manifestation in a soil deposit subject to seismic loading. A 1-D soil column time history Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) was conducted to give an in depth assessment of the development of pore pressures in a number of soil deposits. For this analysis, ground motions, soil profiles and model parameters were required for the ESA. Deconvolution of ground motions recorded at the surface during the CES was used to develop some acceleration time histories to input at the base of the soil-column model. An analysis of 55 sites around Christchurch, where detailed site investigations have been carried out, was then conducted to identify some simplified soil profiles and soil characteristics. From this analysis, four soil profiles representative of different levels of liquefaction manifestation were developed. These were; two thick uniform and vertically continuous sandy deposits that were representative of sites were liquefaction manifested in both the Mw 7.1 September 2010 and the Mw 6.3 February 2011 earthquakes, and two vertically discontinuous profiles with interlayered liquefiable and non-liquefiable layers representative of sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either the September 2010 or the February 2011 events. Model parameters were then developed for these four representative soil profiles through calibration of the constitutive model in element test simulations. Simulations were run for each of the four profiles subject to three levels of loading intensity. The results were analysed for the effect of soil layer interaction. These were then compared to a simplified triggering analysis for the same four profiles to determine where the simplified method was accurate in predicting soil liquefaction (for the continuous sandy deposits) and were it was less accurate (the vertically discontinuous deposits where soil layer interaction was a factor).
